There's never been a greater likelihood a company and its key people will become embroiled in a cross-border investigation. But emerging unscarred is a challenge. Local laws and procedures on corporate offences differ extensively - and can be contradictory. To extricate oneself with minimal cost requires a nuanced ability to blend understanding of the local law with the wider dimension and, in particular, to understand where the different countries showing an interest will differ in approach, expectations or conclusions. Against this backdrop, GIR has published the second edition of The Practitioner's Guide to Global Investigation. The book is divided into two parts with chapters written exclusively by leading names in the field. Using US and UK practice and procedure, Part I tracks the development of a serious allegation (whether originating inside or outside a company) - looking at the key risks that arise and the challenges it poses, along with the opportunities for its resolution. It offers expert insight into fact-gathering (including document preservation and collection, witness interviews); structuring the investigation (the complexities of cross-border privilege issues); and strategising effectively to resolve cross-border probes and manage corporate reputation.Part II features detailed comparable surveys of the relevant law and practice in jurisdictions that build on many of the vital issues pinpointed in Part I.

This Financial Sector Assessment Program report on People’s Republic of China–Hong Kong Special Administrative Region highlights that it has developed a sound framework for the regulation of securities markets, which exhibits a high level of implementation of the International Organization of Securities Commissions Principles. Both the Securities and Futures Commission (SFC) and the Hong Kong Monetary Authority (HKMA) are sophisticated regulators and have been able to leverage from domestic and international expertise to develop sound supervisory practices. Further, while traumatic, the Lehman minibond experience has led to material improvements in conduct supervision that have permeated both the SFC and the HKMA. Continuing efforts by the SFC to build up its capacity to identify and monitor emerging risks should increase the SFC’s ability to react in a timely manner to an evolving landscape, marked by an increased interconnection with the Mainland China, an active presence by international players and increased regional competition as an international finance center. It is important to consider translating the operational independence that the regulators have enjoyed into de-jure independence, through modifications in the current legal governance arrangements for both SFC and HKMA.

Examines the law and policy of financial regulation using a combination of conceptual analysis and strong empirical research.

SUMMARY The Korean authorities have made significant progress since the last FSAP in revising the securities regulatory framework, with the current framework achieving good overall compliance with the International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO) Principles. Importantly, the earlier legal impediments to international cooperation and exchange of information have been removed. Since 2011, Korea also applies the Korean International Financial Reporting Standards (K-IFRS) that follow the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS). Although the regulators’ responsibilities are defined in legislation, the complexity of the structure obscures the transparency of the decision-making processes. The responsibility for deciding on a particular supervisory or enforcement action can lie either at the Financial Services Commission (FSC), Securities and Futures Commission (SFC), or Financial Supervisory Service (FSS), depending on the nature and gravity of action, but it is not always clear which one of them is ultimately in charge. The process is further complicated by the use of pre-deliberation committees at various levels. Self-regulatory organizations—the Korea Exchange (KRX), the Korea Financial Investment Association (KOFIA) and the Korean Institute of Certified Public Accountants (KICPA)— also play a role in the regulatory and supervisory processes. Publication of additional information on the decision-making structure and processes would be beneficial. Operational cooperation and coordination between the various authorities is currently addressed by having the agencies represented in each others’ decision-making bodies. However, the full participation of the Minister of Strategy and Finance at the FSC Board has the potential of compromising the independence of the FSC’s supervisory and enforcement decisions. Consideration should be given on how best to mitigate the potential for undue political influence arising from such governance arrangements by, for example, restricting the participation of the Minister of Strategy and Finance in the supervisory and enforcement decisions. Attention should also be paid to ensuring that the various arrangements for gathering commercial input provide for equal and transparent treatment of market participants.